The Grizzly, December 1, 1989

Curriculum in Transition • Armstrong\u27s Talk a Trauma • Letters: Maturity Decides Right Choice; Everybody\u27s a Critic; Championship Cycling; PDA Pooh-Poohed; Pro-Choice Rally Ironic • Aquatic Lady Bears Stroke Strongly • Hoopsters Hopeful • Women\u27s Track Looks to Season • Congrats to Athletes • Shoudt to Return Next Fall • X-Country Wrap-Up • Swimmers Victorious • Down with Frats • Faith-Leaps Abound • EPA: Not a Joking Matter • What Can Clamer Claim? • Victims of Fishy Business • Corsonites Fashion Comatose • Greeks Promote Sexism • U.C. Honors Spotlight • Final Exam Schedulehttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1248/thumbnail.jp

Meeting Report: Validation of Toxicogenomics-Based Test Systems: ECVAM–ICCVAM/NICEATM Considerations for Regulatory Use

This is the report of the first workshop “Validation of Toxicogenomics-Based Test Systems” held 11–12 December 2003 in Ispra, Italy. The workshop was hosted by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) and organized jointly by ECVAM, the U.S. Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM). The primary aim of the workshop was for participants to discuss and define principles applicable to the validation of toxicogenomics platforms as well as validation of specific toxicologic test methods that incorporate toxicogenomics technologies. The workshop was viewed as an opportunity for initiating a dialogue between technologic experts, regulators, and the principal validation bodies and for identifying those factors to which the validation process would be applicable. It was felt that to do so now, as the technology is evolving and associated challenges are identified, would be a basis for the future validation of the technology when it reaches the appropriate stage. Because of the complexity of the issue, different aspects of the validation of toxicogenomics-based test methods were covered. The three focus areas include a) biologic validation of toxicogenomics-based test methods for regulatory decision making, b) technical and bioinformatics aspects related to validation, and c) validation issues as they relate to regulatory acceptance and use of toxicogenomics-based test methods. In this report we summarize the discussions and describe in detail the recommendations for future direction and priorities

Blood-based kinase activity profiling: A potential predictor of response to immune checkpoint inhibition in metastatic cancer

Background Many cancer patients do not obtain clinical benefit from immune checkpoint inhibition. Checkpoint blockade targets T cells, suggesting that tyrosine kinase activity profiling of baseline peripheral blood mononuclear cells may predict clinical outcome. Methods Here a total of 160 patients with advanced melanoma or non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), treated with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (anti-CTLA-4) or anti-programmed cell death 1 (anti-PD-1), were divided into five discovery and cross-validation cohorts. The kinase activity profile was generated by analyzing phosphorylation of peripheral blood mononuclear cell lysates in a microarray comprising of 144 peptides derived from sites that are substrates for protein tyrosine kinases. Binary grouping into patients with or without clinical benefit was based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1. Predictive models were trained using partial least square discriminant analysis (PLS-DA), performance of the models was evaluated by estimating the correct classification rate (CCR) using cross-validation. Results The kinase phosphorylation signatures segregated responders from non-responders by differences in canonical pathways governing T-cell migration, infiltration and co-stimulation. PLS-DA resulted in a CCR of 100% and 93% in the anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD1 melanoma discovery cohorts, respectively. Cross-validation cohorts to estimate the accuracy of the predictive models showed CCRs of 83% for anti-CTLA-

Ocean mass from GRACE and glacial isostatic adjustment

We examine geoid rates and ocean mass corrections from two published global glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) models, both of which have been used in previous studies to estimate ocean mass trends from Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite gravity data. These two models are different implementations of the same ice loading history and use similar mantle viscosity profiles. The model results are compared with each other and with geoid rates determined from GRACE during August 2002 to November 2009. When averaged over the global ocean, the two models have rates that differ by nearly 1 mm yr (1) of ocean mass, with the first model giving a correction closer to 2 mm yr (1) and the second closer to 1 mm yr (1). By comparing the two models, we have discovered that 50% of the difference is caused by a global (land + ocean) mean in the first model. While it is appropriate to include this mean when subtracting GIA effects from measurements of sea level change measured by tide gauges or satellite altimetry, the mean should not be included when subtracting GIA effects from ocean mass variations derived from satellite gravity data. When this mean is removed, the ocean mass corrections from the two models still disagree by 0.4 mm yr(-1). We trace the residual difference to the fact that the first model also has large trends over the ocean related to large rates in its predicted degree 2, order 1 geoid coefficients. Such oceanic trends are not observed by GRACE nor are they predicted by the second model, and they are shown to be inconsistent with the polar wander rates predicted by the first model itself. If these two problems are corrected, we find that the two model predictions agree at the 3% level. On the basis of this analysis, we conclude that the ocean mass correction for GRACE is closer to 1 mm yr(-1) than 2 mm yr(-1), although significant uncertainties remai

The effects of all-trans retinoic acid on estrogen receptor signaling in the estrogen-sensitive MCF/BUS subline

Estrogen receptor alpha (ERα) and retinoic acid receptors (RARs) play important and opposite roles in breast cancer growth. While exposure to ERα agonists such as 17β-estradiol (E2) is related to proliferation, RAR agonists such as all-trans retinoic acid (AtRA) induce anti-proliferative effects. Although crosstalk between these pathways has been proposed, the molecular mechanisms underlying this interplay are still not completely unraveled. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of AtRA on ERα-mediated signaling in the ERα positive cell lines MCF7/BUS and U2OS-ERα-Luc to investigate some of the possible underlying modes of action. To do so, this study assessed the effects of AtRA on different ERα-related events such as ERα-mediated cell proliferation and gene expression, ERα-coregulator binding and ERα subcellular localization. AtRA-mediated antagonism of E2-induced signaling was observed in the proliferation and gene expression studies. However, AtRA showed no remarkable effects on the E2-driven coregulator binding and subcellular distribution of ERα. Interestingly, in the absence of E2, ERα-mediated gene expression, ERα-coregulator binding and ERα subcellular mobilization were increased upon exposure to micromolar concentrations of AtRA found to inhibit cell proliferation after long-term exposure. Nevertheless, experiments using purified ERα showed that direct binding of AtRA to ERα does not occur. Altogether, our results using MCF7/BUS and U2OS-ERα-Luc cells suggest that AtRA, without being a direct ligand of ERα, can indirectly interfere on basal ERα-coregulator binding and basal ERα subcellular localization in addition to the previously described crosstalk mechanisms such as competition of ERs and RARs for DNA binding sites

Characterization of the differential coregulator binding signatures of the Retinoic Acid Receptor subtypes upon (ant)agonist action

Retinoic Acid Receptor alpha (RARα/NR1B1), Retinoic Acid Receptor beta (RARβ/NR1B2) and Retinoic Acid Receptor gamma (RARγ/NR1B3) are transcription factors regulating gene expression in response to retinoids. Within the RAR genomic pathways, binding of RARs to coregulators is a key intermediate regulatory phase. However, ligand-dependent interactions between the wide variety of coregulators that may be present in a cell and the different RAR subtypes are largely unknown. The aim of this study is to characterize the coregulator binding profiles of RARs in the presence of the pan-agonist all-trans-Retinoic Acid (AtRA); the subtype-selective agonists Am80 (RARα), CD2314 (RARβ) and BMS961 (RARγ); and the antagonist Ro415253. To this end, we used a microarray assay for coregulator-nuclear receptor interactions to assess RAR binding to 154 motifs belonging to > 60 coregulators. The results revealed a high number of ligand-dependent RAR-coregulator interactions among all RAR variants, including many binding events not yet described in literature. Next, this work confirmed a greater ligand-independent activity of RARβ compared to the other RAR subtypes based on both higher basal and lower ligand-driven coregulator binding. Further, several coregulator motifs showed selective binding to a specific RAR subtype. Next, this work showed that subtype-selective agonists can be successfully discriminated by using coregulator binding assays. Finally this study demonstrated the possible applications of a coregulator binding assay as a tool to discriminate between agonistic/antagonistic actions of ligands. The RAR-coregulator interactions found will be of use to direct further studies to better understand the mechanisms driving the eventual actions of retinoids.</p